electric heating and cancer

Z

z102

Guest
In an earlier thread we talked about cancer causing electric fields in the home .
Some viewers said that there is no evidence between cancer and electromagnetic fields . Now , there is .
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/330/7503/1290?ehom
The university of Oxford has prooven it . Statistical evidence sampled on 26.000 cases . It's only statistical evidence the scientists say , right they are . Any animal testing by the pharmaceutical/cosmetical industry with results like the ones above lead to one result only : Dump this product !
And a save distance of 600 meters from a power line - where would you live , in Ireland ? These cables belong underground before our children end up there . And magnetic fields by cellular telephones and electric heating/night storage heating - will there be another study in 20 years showing us that there is statistical evidence ?
 
I'm no physicist but does burying them really improve things? You'd be surprised by the amount and sources of electric fields. Even sitting in the front seats of a car can expose you to quite a lot. Here's [broken link removed] that states even tyres in motion can give of EMF. Think about when a mobile phone call is coming through and that the speakers can pick it up but you're typically nearer to the phone than the speakers. Even sitting on a bus beside someone with a mobile. And when/if cars etc. become more electricity driven, things would only appear to be getting worse. We grow up in an electricity. Heck, babies are even born with the stuff in close proximity.

But what can you do? I'll have to stop now. It's very difficult typing on a laptop with very long sticks.

[Edit: Here's an interesting list of devices and their emissions]
 
Hi, I remember the previous discussion.

Let us remember that here is a difference between high voltage and low voltage. By definition, our homes run on low voltage.

According to the study and what they base their theory on, they are saying that the high voltage line fields produce ions called corona in the air, which can travel via wind.......so according to that, yes, I imagine burying them would decrease risks.

My own theory is that if you are subject to a strong electromagnetic field then the Hydrogen atoms in your body and your nervous system are going to react to the effects. Whether those effects result in mutation I don't know. In this case burying them wouldn't lessen the effect, as magnetic field strength is not decreased by non-ferromagnetic materials (eg> earth).
 
A.) It's not the " strong " magnetic field that was measured / evaluated by Oxford but the " weak " .

B.) Earth - as any mass - does shield against elektromagnetic fields. Esp. since "earth" does contain iron . Our tap water contains so much of it that it is treated to stop our clothes/sinks/toilett bowls getting a brown (iron!) stain. There are limits , set by the WHO , allowing only a certain amount of iron ( 0.2mg/l ) in our water . Hardly any where in Ireland this can be achieved with natural spring/river water . Even Ballygowan has to be treated. The earth is made of more than 90% iron as far as I remember my school days.
Back to point A.) Make a little experiment yourself . Take a simple compass and go with it near a simple life cable like the one of your computer.Stop when the needle reacts . Put some mass (your hand /a sheet of paper / a can of beer etc.) between the compass and the life cable and watch the needle of the compass.And report back.
 
This is not proof at all - just see the conclusions of the report itself. No causality has been established. Note in particular the underlined parts (my underlining):
 
take your average man who carries his phone in his pocket about 4 inches away from what matters most to him in life.....maybe us men should concentrate on sorting that out first!!!
I'm off to buy a handbag!
 
legend99 said:
take your average man who carries his phone in his pocket about 4 inches away from what matters most to him in life
Click to expand...
His wallet? Or his stomach?
 
The university of Oxford has prooven it . Statistical evidence sampled on 26.000 cases .
Click to expand...

This is not proof at all - just see the conclusions of the report itself. No causality has been established. Note in particular the underlined parts (my underlining):
Click to expand...

You'll never get 'proof' in such a study. A hypothesis is either accepted or rejected at a level of signicance, typically 95% or sometimes 99%. I doubt there is 'proof' that smoking causes lung cancer.

(Most epidemiology experiments have confounding factors.)

 
I merely used the term "proof" because heinbloed used it first. By "proof" I obviously meant that the study hypothesises no causal link. Just a correlation.
 
I suggest that everyone reads "The China Study" It suggests that regardless of the cancer causing sources that you come in contact with if you have less than 5% animal protein in your diet a tumor can not grow.
 
phew, I was sitting in the dark eating tinned fish. Thanks for that Clubman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register